Acquittal Upheld Where Testimony of Sole Eye Witness Lacked Credibility and Identification Was Not Established

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1997

The prosecution alleged that on account of a prior grudge regarding liquor consumption, the six accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with knives, a sword, a bat, and wooden logs to assault and murder Rajendrasinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja

The deceased succumbed to injuries sustained during the assault

During the pendency of the appeal, the case against Accused Nos. 3 and 4 was dismissed, Accused No. 1 died (appeal abated), and the current proceedings remained primarily focused on Accused No. 5 (Respondent No. 5)

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a manifest error or perversity in discarding the testimony of the alleged eye-witness (P.W. 5) and acquitting the accused.

2. Whether the prosecution established the identity and involvement of Respondent No. 5 in the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Presumption of innocence, which is reinforced by an acquittal

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the appreciation of evidence and witness credibility

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, which established that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible, unless the trial court’s finding is perverse or suffers from manifest illegality

Principle that the quality, not quantity, of evidence matters for conviction

The High Court observed that out of 20 witnesses, only P.W. 5 (an injured eye-witness) supported the prosecution, but his testimony was inconsistent and failed to inspire confidence

P.W. 5’s timeline of the incident contradicted the discovery of the body, and his cross-examination revealed significant gaps

Regarding Respondent No. 5, the court noted that the witness identified an "unknown person" in shepherd attire but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to confirm the respondent's identity

The court found that the Investigating Agency failed to record the complaint from P.W. 5 (who was present from the start) and instead relied on hearsay evidence from the deceased's wife

The High Court held that the Trial Court's decision to discard P.W. 5’s testimony as not being of "sterling quality" was a reasonable and plausible view

The prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to connect the accused to the crime and failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt

The court concluded that there were no "firm and weighty grounds" to interfere with the Trial Court’s findings, as the view taken by the lower court was neither perverse nor illegal

The bail bonds were cancelled